Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/17/2011

Srider, minor, rep. by his father K. Venkat Ramulu S/o Kistaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation and other - Opp.Party(s)

Sri M.Chennaiah Goud

29 Aug 2011

ORDER

  BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Monday, the 29^th day of August, 2011 

                                                    Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

                                                                    Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member        

     C.C.NO. 17  Of   2011

Between:-

Srider, minor, rep. by his father K. Venkat Ramulu S/o Kistaiah, aged 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o 1-5, Gorigenooru, Yadgir Tq., Gulbarga District, Karnataka State.                                                                                                           … Complainant

And

1. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Jeevan Jyothi, D.No.1-6-17, Station Road, Mahabubnagar District.  

2. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash” 5-9-21, Secretariat Road, Saifabad,                      Hyderabad.                                                                                                                                                … Opposite Parties

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 19-8-2011 in the presence of Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and Sri Lakshmikantha Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

O R D E R

  (Sri A. Veerupakshi, Member)

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to return the amount of Rs.21,722/- with interest @ 36% p.a. from 15-3-2006 till today and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and for adopting unfair trade practice, Rs.30,000/- for causing mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.   

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The complainant a minor being represented by his father by paying a sum of Rs.21,722/- and submitted proposal form together with the necessary documents to the opposite parties for issuance of Jeevan Rekha LIC Policy on 15-3-2006.  Thereafter the opposite parties have not issued the policy bond to the complainant inspite of giving many representations to them.  While the matter stood thus, on 5-2-2008 the opposite parties sent a cheque for a sum of Rs.21,722/- in favour of the complainant without any interest. Thereupon the complainant returned the said cheque along with a representation for sending the said amount of Rs.21,722/- by way of a cheque that too after two years without any reasonable cause and without any interest for the said two years demanding the opposite parties to pay interest @ 36% p.a. over the said principal amount of Rs.21,722/-. Thereafter the opposite parties kept quiet without complying his demand. At last when the complainant got issued a legal notice on 29-9-2010 the opposite parties sent reply on 24-11-2010 with false pleadings. Such act on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid reliefs.    

3. The opposite parties filed counter stating that by the time when the complainant submitted proposal for issuance of Jeevan Rekha Policy but the said plan was withdrawn w.e.f. 17-3-2006 and the same was accordingly intimated to the complainant advising him to submit fresh proposal under other plan for the proposal deposit paid by him, but however the complainant had not submitted any such fresh proposal, that thereupon the amount paid by the complainant that was kept in suspense account at last was refunded to the complainant on 5-2-2008.  It is further stated that when the complainant has returned the cheque uncashed claiming interest over it, later the opposite parties again refunded the said amount of Rs.21,722/- through cheque No.15236, dt.27-11-2010 to the complainant who in turn without any protest and objection to that effect received the same and encashed it on 15-12-2010, and that even to the legal notice got issued by the complainant the opposite parties accordingly replied him and hence there is no cause of action to the complainant to file the present case and there is no deficiency or defective service on their part and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.       

4. Thereupon the complainant in support of his claim filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6.  On the other hand, the opposite parties in support of their contentions filed their affidavit evidence and got marked Ex.B-1. 

5.  The points for determination now are: 

1.  Whether is there any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged?
2.  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for by him? 
3.  To what effect? 

6. The admitted facts of the case are that when the complainant submitted proposal form together with necessary documents for obtaining Jeevan Rekha Policy the opposite parties intimated the complainant advising him to submit fresh proposal under other plan for the proposal deposit paid by him on the ground that the said Jeevan Rekha Policy plan was withdrawn w.e.f. 17-3-2006.   

7. Point No.1:- The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the opposite parties failed to issue the Jeevan Rekha Policy to the complainant. But we are unable to agree with the said contention for the reason that when the complainant was informed to submit fresh proposal under other plan on the ground that the said Jeevan Rekha Policy plan was withdrawn w.e.f. 17-3-2006 the question of issuing the policy by the opposite parties does not arise at all.  Hence we find that there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant.  

8. As far as the deposit amount of Rs.21,722/- is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the opposite parties keeping the said amount with them for two years simply refunded the amount by way of a cheque without any interest and therefore the complainant returned the said cheque demanding for interest as such the complainant is entitled for refund of the said amount of Rs.21,722/- along with interest.  It may be no doubt true that the complainant might have returned the cheque issued by the opposite parties for the first time for the said amount of Rs.21,722/- without any interest.  It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the opposite parties kept the said amount of Rs.21,722/- in their suspense account awaiting for the new proposal from the complainant as was advised, but ultimately when a new proposal was not received from the complainant even after a sufficient long period the opposite parties again sent the said amount of Rs.21,722/- by way of a fresh cheque to the complainant who in turn received the same without any protest and encashed the same and therefore there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in rendering service to the complainant. The Ex.B-1 copy of the statement of account also clearly corroborates the contention of the opposite parties.

9. At this stage the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that when the policy was not going to be issued in view of the withdrawal of the said plan they ought to have refunded the amount of Rs.21,722/- within reasonable time but the opposite parties kept the said amount with them for two years without any reasonable cause and at last refunded the same without any interest and therefore the complainant is entitled for the interest for the said period over the principal amount of Rs.21,722/-.  

10. So, the only dispute in the present case is only with regard to the interest. It is a fact borne out from the record that the complainant submitted his proposal form and deposited an amount of Rs.21,722/- on 15-3-2006 for issuance of Jeevan Rekha Policy.  As per the very counter and the affidavit evidence filed by the opposite parties admittedly it is an admitted fact that the said plan was withdrawn w.e.f. 17-3-2006.  That itself shows that as on the date of the proposal deposit amount of Rs.21,722/- the said plan was not yet being withdrawn.  When the said plan was in force as on 15-3-2006 the date on which the proposal deposit amount was made by the complainant the opposite parties ought to have issued the policy to the complainant if it is otherwise not in order. But according to the   opposite parties they have not issued the policy as the said plan was withdrawn w.e.f. 17-3-2006.  It is not the contention of the opposite parties that the proposal submitted by the complainant was not in order and as such they have not issued the policy.  The non issuance of policy within time though the said plan was in force as on the date of the proposal deposit amount of Rs.21,722/- made to the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  If for some reason or other the said plan was withdrawn during the period of scrutinize of the proposal submitted by the complainant, the opposite parties ought to have immediately refunded the amount to the complainant advising him to submit a fresh proposal under other plan as per rules.  It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that awaiting for fresh proposal from the complainant they kept the said amount in their suspense account and when the complainant failed to submit any fresh proposal under any other plan they ultimately refunded the said amount by way of a cheque.  But this is the case where the complainant paid the proposal deposit amount of Rs.21,722/- on 15-3-2006 and whereas the opposite parties refunded the said amount for the first time on 5-2-2008 i.e., nearly after about two years that too without any interest. Therefore we find that refunding of such amount by keeping it with them for about two years without assigning any satisfactory reason amounts to deficiency of service for which the opposite parties are liable to pay interest over the said amount of Rs.21,722/- reasonably together with some compensation for delay in making payment to the complainant.  For the reasons stated above, we hold that the complainant had succeeded in establishing the ground of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties with regard to the refund of the original proposal deposit amount only without interest. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.

11. Point No.2:- In view of the finding given on point No.1 we hold that the complainant is entitled for interest and some compensation and costs of the proceedings reasonably and the opposite parties are liable to pay the same to the complainant. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.

 12. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant interest                @ 9% p.a. over the proposal deposit amount of Rs.21,722/- from 15-3-2006 the date on which the amount was deposited till 27-11-2010 the date on which the opposite parties issued a fresh cheque and encashed it subsequently by the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards costs of the proceedings within one month from the date of the present order.      

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of August, 2011.    

                                                                                             I agree                                                   

 

MEMBER                                                                PRESIDENT     

   Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Parties:   

- Nil -                                                                   - Nil -           

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

Ex.A-1: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.10.9.2007.

Ex.A-2: Photostat copy of Letter with copy of cheque, dt.7.2.2008.

Ex.A-3: Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.23.5.2008.

Ex.A-4: Copy of Letter issued by the complainant, dt.20.9.2008.

Ex.A-5: Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.29.9.2010.

Ex.A-6: Copy of Letter issued by OP-1, dt.24.11.2010.

On behalf of OPs.:                  

Ex.B-1: Copy of Statement of Account.   

                                                                  

                                                                                                PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                                                                              

Copy to:-

1. Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.

2. Sri Lakshmikantha Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties.